Types of logic

The support you use in your storyline is determined by the type of logic you choose. Choose the type
of logic for your storyline that most effectively supports your Governing Thought or key message and
best fits the needs of your audience.

Deductive

Inductive
Your choice of logic in your approach will determine the sequence of messages and
slides within your presentation.

Deductive logic is based on reasoning and can be used in a variety of situations. A deductive
argument is effective with audiences that do not understand the content or are resistant. It
demonstrates that no other avenue will work, and presents all conclusions and recommendations at
the same time. It is generally easier to construct a sound deductive argument, than an inductive
argument.

Here’s an example.

• Your non-controversial statements are: 1) "Need for growth in foreign markets." 2) "Current
European and South American marketing plans underperforming." and 3) “No marketing plan
specifically tailored to Asian countries.”

• Your comment on that situation is, “Asia represents 80% of global growth opportunities.”
• You’re telling your audience, “Hey, your focus isn’t currently in the right place.”
• So your logical conclusion is, “Therefore, in order to capitalize on these opportunities, you need
a marketing plan tailored to Asia.”

Deductive reasoning does have some cons, however. If the audience disagrees with the "situation"
or the "comment", the argument will fail to persuade. Deductive reasoning also requires the audience
to remember a great deal of information before getting to the conclusion – particularly with complex
arguments.

Inductive logic is for people who already know the situation. It's based on grouping things that are
similar in some way, and then using them to point to a general conclusion. In this type of logic, each
of the supporting arguments are directly connected. It can be an action, reason, or example.
Depending on your client situation, list the action, reason, and/or example, and then tie it back to the
Governing Thought.

An inductive argument is often preferred to structure a non-controversial story. It’s effective for
action-oriented audiences. It provides details about major points that are easy to remember. If one
point is rejected, the remaining points may still persuade the audience.
In the example earlier, we were talking about opportunities in Asia.

• An inductive presentation would start with a fact or situation: "A marketing plan specifically
tailored to Asian countries is needed."

Depending on your client situation, list the action, reason, and/or example, and then tie it back to the
Governing Thought or key message.

Let’s say you have five supporting arguments:

1. Potential value creation in Japan is $500m

2. Potential value creation in China is $200m
3. Potential value creation in the rest of Asia is $100m
4. Potential value creation in the rest of the world is $75m
5. You don’t have an Asian specific marketing campaign

With these supporting arguments, the Governing Thought is clearly that the company should refocus
on Asia as a whole, to continue performance improvement.

As a reminder, in the deductive logic example, people didn’t know where the opportunities were. We
needed to lead them to focus on Asia. In this example, however, the audience already knows that
Asia is an opportunity. We have to provide detail to them on how to optimize it.

An inductive argument also has its cons. It can be too forceful for some audiences. It can also be
more difficult to construct solid arguments than if using a deductive or abductive structure, since
missing information may not be apparent.

Both structures are valid and your decision on which to use will depend on the audience and the
messages you are trying to convey.
Abductive logic is a subcategory of inductive logic, and is used for particularly critical and detail-
oriented audiences. Inductive logic requires a solid understanding of your audience’s interests - and
possible pushback - all of which you need to address in your supporting arguments. Abductive logic
is a matter of ‘shape’: formulating your arguments as critical questions, instead of positive
statements. This kind of logic is based on providing breakthrough thinking through a series of tests.
Instead of simply presenting the facts, the approach takes the standpoint that the facts are complete.

So - you have all the facts to support your Governing Thought. You are now testing those facts. With
this style of logic you are always questioning. You begin by thinking, “How do I poke holes in my
Governing Thought?”

In the example earlier, we were talking about opportunities in Asia.

What are some things our audience will push back on?

1. There aren’t great opportunities.

2. There are better opportunities somewhere else.
3. We don’t have the capabilities to realize the opportunity.

This logic style requires more work and information from the project team. You have to anticipate the
audience’s potential objections. In effect, you’re building the slide deck by showing proof, of how
potential concerns have been considered, and how they lead to your conclusion.

Abductive logic is useful for skeptical audiences or where the topic is controversial. In these
situations, the inductive and deductive methods would not be effective.

Your primary message is: We have tested our Governing Thought to measure its completeness.
There is nothing better.

An abductive argument can be a powerful way to convince the skeptics, particularly if tests are used
to disprove an accepted position. The logic can easily be tested and proved.

Of course, this process also has cons. Some tests may be difficult to prove - for example, the idea
that, "Nothing else will work.” A gap in logic can surface and cause the whole argument to fail. This
type of logic can also be too forceful for some audiences.

© 2017 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership. All rights reserved.
PwC refers to the United States member firm. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.
This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for
consultation with professional advisors.